Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3519Re: [existlist] Nietzsche, Hegel, and Kierkegaard

Expand Messages
  • Anubis1130@aol.com
    Sep 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Eduard:

      Yeah I see what you said in both the emails, the transcendental god does
      work, some hate the transcendental god like Nietzsche, Kirkegaard needed him
      for an authentic existence. Some questions though, in your opinion how many
      Christians are Hegelian, I see books comparing Hegel to Hermeticism,
      followers of Eastern thought like him, but not that much Christians, I have
      even seen Christian sites that bash him, Schelling and Fichte for the
      immanent god. The idea of man as god trying to realize himself is pagan, I
      would agree with Kirkegaard on that. Also I believe Barth of whom I read
      very little wanted to make god and man as antithetical. I never perceive of
      Christianity as an immanentism, to me Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all
      have the transcendental lord, and everything boils down to creator vs
      created. What is your opinion on this?

      Now you study Taoism, that interests me. Where for Western metaphysics(Old
      Greek), there was some state of the Spirit or Mind that had to be realized,
      even in the Indian, one could state the Shaivist and Shakttist tradition as a
      progressive phenomology. I have heard that Taoism doesn't take this
      approach, it is not seen a s a sort of progressive phenomology as in the
      Shavist, Shaktiist, Hermetic, and Hegelian approach, but rather as the most
      authentic form of existence. So for Taoism you don't take the approach of
      the moralist religions or the ones in which you try to realize some form of
      the absolute spirit, but one in which your realize your true state of Being.
      It would be more on the lines of Heidegger rather than Hegel.

      -Mark

      In a message dated 8/31/2001 4:19:05 PM Central Daylight Time,
      yeoman@... writes:


      > hi Mark,
      >
      > You paint a dark picture. I understand where you
      > are coming from, but I don't think anyone started
      > off with the intention of "creating a vast abyss
      > between God and man", or putting man's dignity
      > somewhere that it needs be brought back. I should
      > think that there was simply a progressive
      > evolution towards things that "work". The same
      > goes for Jesus being a "saviour"; it simply made
      > sense at the time and place. Albeit the concept
      > may not necessarily work in today's world.
      >
      > Whether the transcendental god must die is still
      > open to question. There has been some movement
      > towards pagan religions and the like. I myself am
      > inclined towards Daoism, but there is always this
      > feeling that there has to be some kind of concrete
      > god to which to brings one's problems. The way I
      > see it, there will always be a need for a
      > transcendental god. Perhaps the one at present
      > has to be changed to meet the new conditions of
      > our society.
      >
      > eduard
      >




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 29 messages in this topic